The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant A) did not receive or promised to receive a request from Defendant D for the selection of the bareboat service provider, and received some of the money from Defendant B, but the fact was that the bareboat service provider was lower than the price for the bareboat service provider, and all the money that B received from Defendant D and E and did not deliver to the Defendant was not received by Defendant B as the money on the ground of the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower judgment convicting all of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A and D (the two years of imprisonment for Defendant A and the surcharge 193,421,447 won, Defendant D’s imprisonment for one year) is too unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A and C (the two years of suspended execution, the surcharge 40 million won, and the community service time for Defendant C’s imprisonment for ten months) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s status as the Defendant, etc. is as follows: (a) from February 5, 2009 to April 5, 2010; (b) R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”)

B served as a representative director. B, the R representative director, B, B, as a member of the R on Jan. 6, 2007, and B, as a member of the non-permanent team on Oct. 1, 2007, issued an order of non-permanent team on Oct. 1, 2007, and was in charge of non-permanent affairs until the beginning of 2011 (Promotion to Class 5), and thereafter, was in charge of personnel affairs from the beginning of 2011 to October 17, 2013 (the title of the human resource development team was changed to Grade 4) (the title of the human resource development team was changed to Grade 3), and Defendant C was in charge of personnel affairs in the personnel management team (the name of the human resource development team was promoted to Grade 4). Meanwhile, Defendant C, after the strategic planning team leader of R and the strategic project team leader, Defendant D, a cash receipt service provider, and Do Governor (Class 3).